Search

Context/problem: Comparative analysis of relative and absolute mortality differentials between socioeconomic groups are now available. These show consistently increasing relative increases in mortality differentials but complex trends in absolute mortality differentials. Objective: This paper provides an analysis of relative and absolute trends in mortality by cause of death and socioeconomic group (SEG) from 1984 to 2008 among men and active women aged 30-64 years in Ireland and compares these results with recent European and US studies to give an overview of trends. Methods: This paper uses mortality data from the Irish Central Statistics Office from 1984 to 2008 to calculate standardized death rates by age, sex, socioeconomic status and cause of death showing trends in SEG inequalities in mortality in Ireland. These show which specific causes of death are driving all-cause mortality trends. Results: SEG differentials in all-cause mortality among men and women have been increasing since the 1980s. Some of this increase reflects larger falls in cardiovascular causes among advantaged groups, but the trend is largely accounted for by increasing inequalities in mortality in digestive, neoplasm and external causes of deaths. Conclusions: These findings are in line with international findings that show that socioeconomic differentials in digestive, neoplasm and external cause deaths are driving general socioeconomic differentials in all-cause mortality. External cause deaths may have been influenced by levels of economic activity, particularly in construction, during the economic boom among manual workers. Furthermore, deaths from digestive diseases during the 1990s and 2000s may well be the result of increases in liver disease associated with excessive alcohol consumption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tier 1 exposure tools recommended for use under REACH are designed to easily identify situations that may pose a risk to health through conservative exposure predictions. However, no comprehensive evaluation of the performance of the lower tier tools has previously been carried out. The ETEAM project aimed to evaluate several lower tier exposure tools (ECETOC TRA, MEASE, and EMKG-EXPO-TOOL) as well as one higher tier tool (STOFFENMANAGER®). This paper describes the results of the external validation of tool estimates using measurement data. Methods: Measurement data were collected from a range of providers, both in Europe and United States, together with contextual information. Individual measurement and aggregated measurement data were obtained. The contextual information was coded into the tools to obtain exposure estimates. Results were expressed as percentage of measurements exceeding the tool estimates and presented by exposure category (non-volatile liquid, volatile liquid, metal abrasion, metal processing, and powder handling). We also explored tool performance for different process activities as well as different scenario conditions and exposure levels. Results: In total, results from nearly 4000 measurements were obtained, with the majority for the use of volatile liquids and powder handling. The comparisons of measurement results with tool estimates suggest that the tools are generally conservative. However, the tools were more conservative when estimating exposure from powder handling compared to volatile liquids and other exposure categories. In addition, results suggested that tool performance varies between process activities and scenario conditions. For example, tools were less conservative when estimating exposure during activities involving tabletting, compression, extrusion, pelletisation, granulation (common process activity PROC14) and transfer of substance or mixture (charging and discharging) at nondedicated facilities (PROC8a; powder handling only). With the exception of STOFFENMANAGER® (for estimating exposure during powder handling), the tools were less conservative for scenarios with lower estimated exposure levels. Conclusions: This is the most comprehensive evaluation of the performance of REACH exposure tools carried out to date. The results show that, although generally conservative, the tools may not always achieve the performance specified in the REACH guidance, i.e. using the 75th or 90th percentile of the exposure distribution for the risk characterisation. Ongoing development, adjustment, and recalibration of the tools with new measurement data are essential to ensure adequate characterisation and control of worker exposure to hazardous substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]